<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, March 13, 2004

Negative campaigning Part 2
The recent comment by John Kerry describing his critics in the Republican Party as "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen" has to be considered an example of negative campaigning.

There seems to be a habit of the John Kerry campaign to treat those who voice their dissent with total disrespect. From Florida comes this report:

After watching the nightly news, Rebecca Porter had a dream envisioning herself letting Kerry know she had an abortion and regretted her decision.

Porter told LifeNews.com that she and a friend went to an event the Kerry campaign had scheduled in Tampa. She brought along a sign that simply read, "My abortion hurt me."

Here is what happened at the event:

Not long after, Porter made her way to an area where Kerry was shaking hands with a large group of people. She eventually found herself exactly where she hoped she would be -- a few feet away from the man some hope will be the next president.

She held up her sign.

"Then it happened," Porter explains. "He reached up to shake a hand in the back and his eyes went up to my sign. He read it and then he looked into the crowd to see who was holding it -- and he looked me directly in the eyes."

"I hope he saw my pain. I was not angry, just pleading with him to understand. You could see the shock and surprise on his face," Porter said.

But within seconds, a Kerry campaign staff member approached Porter and grabbed her sign.
"You can't have that sign here," the Kerry staffer said.

The sign tore and Porter let go. After he had possession of it, the Kerry staffer "tore it to pieces" and walked away. "He wouldn't even let me have the pieces," Porter said.

LifeNews.com spoke with a Kerry press assistant who declined to comment. Officials with the Florida Kerry campaign did not return a phone call.

Thursday, March 11, 2004

Another fact on David Kranz’s bias
South Dakota Politics has posted another complaint about Argus Leader’s David Kranz pro-Democrat bias. This time it is from a 1986 column of Lowell Hansen complaining about a Kranz column that promoted Democrat Richard Kneip. This reminds me of a post I made on 5/29/03 titled, “The David Kranz Story Part Three”:

In a 9/4/1976 column in the Mitchell Daily Republic, Dave Kranz announced:

More familiar faces are returning from other parts of the country to South Dakota. Tom and Laurie Daschle, aides to Sen. James Abourezk in Washington have been reassigned to Abourezk’s Sioux Falls office.

Daschle is formerly of Aberdeen and his wife is the daughter of PUC commissioner Mrs. Norma Klinkel. We went to college with Daschle at South Dakota State University and worked together on a mock political convention.

Daschle masterminded one of the most successful participation events by students of an unrequired nature when he headed the political science department’s convention project. Well over 650 students got involved in the event which was patterned after the Democratic convention that year because of the general interest.

I remember our tireless search to find a renowned public speaker to address the convention such as McGovern, McCarthy, Humphrey or some other prominent Democrat. With no takers, we finally found a popular young state senator from Salem to address the group. His name was Richard Kneip.

This was followed up by a Inside South Dakota post that documented more details on the close relationship Kranz fostered in 1968 with Tom Daschle and also documents the beginning of Kranz's pro-Democrat bias as a journalist:

In 1968, after helping to organize the Democratic mock convention and bring in Democratic speakers, Kranz then wrote about the convention for the South Dakota Collegian.

Interestingly, KRANZ DIDN'T MENTION THAT HE HELPED ORGANIZE THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION ON WHICH HE WAS REPORTING. But he did laud Tom Daschle, "who played a major role in the success of this convention. From the very beginning of the efforts last fall, right up until the rapping of the gavel, calling the first session to order, Daschle spent countless hours organizing the event and working with delegations and committees." "During the two weeks prior to the convention Daschle worked continuously making last minute delegation changes, completing arrangements for the keynote address and working with the coordinating committee.

He made the opening address at the torch-light rally. The following day, serving as National Party Chairman, he called the convention to order. After that he stepped into a delegate's position on the floor, but his efforts there did not go unnoticed."

Also of interest: Daschle changed the mock political convention from a Republican convention to a Democratic convention.

Is it any wonder it's impossible for Dave Kranz to fairly report the news--in particular, the news that is not so kind toward Daschle? After 35 years of shilling for Daschle, why stop now?

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Negative Campaigning
WorldNetDaily has a David Limbaugh column in regard to negative campaigning:

It is wrongheaded to believe that political discourse must always be sweet and light, and rosy and cheerful. Political debate should, of course, be civil, but "getting along" should not be elevated above adhering to principle. We've fallen for the notion that controversy is inherently unhealthy, when the precise opposite is closer to the truth. Indeed, the free flow of conflicting ideas is indispensable to maintaining a regime of freedom.

The essence of free speech is the right to unfettered expression on matters of politics and policy, because these subjects determine the scope and conduct of government and thereby safeguard freedom by ensuring the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around. Conversely, suppressing dissent is a pathway to and a hallmark of totalitarianism.

But in recent times, the political Left, which resides in the Democratic Party, has conducted a systematic assault on political speech, from politically correct speech codes on college campuses to campaign finance "reforms," to efforts to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine for radio broadcasting. At the same time, the Left has been engaged in an all-out effort to eliminate restrictions on expressions that have little to do with preserving freedom, such as obscenity.

With such an under-appreciation for the importance of political speech, it is hardly surprising that the Left is also trying to chill speech through intimidation tactics at the campaign level.

So look to Team Kerry to implement a multipronged strategy centered around false charges of negative campaigning by Team Bush, while simultaneously engaging in negative campaigning itself to stifle a wide-ranging policy debate.

Later in the column Limbaugh really hit the nail on the head with this comment:

We must understand that dirty campaigning is lying about or distorting your record or your opponent's record. It is not dirty to expose the truth about your policy positions and record or that of your opponent, even when it puts him in a negative light. Such an airing of the record is not only not dirty campaigning, it is essential to inform the electorate. If the candidates' views and records aren't fair game, then there is no point to political campaigns or even to democratic participation.

Now with these thoughts in mind, I would like to remind you of David Kranz’s effort in 2003 to head off an ad campaign that would hold Daschle accountable for his voting record via a The Hill report:

And now, according to a new Kranz article, two Republican operatives are organizing something called the Daschle Accountability Project, a yearlong, $800,000 anti-Daschle ad-campaign featuring a folksy duo modeled off those old Bartles & James TV commercials. The goal is to tar Daschle as a liberal out of touch with South Dakota values and in league with outsiders.

You can also find reference to the ‘anti-Daschle’ ploy on the DASHPAC web site. A desperate attempt to falsely accuse John Thune of negatvie campaigning. He was not even a candidate in May 2003.

There was more insight provided by Greg Belfrage on how the Daschle Campaign will treat those who voice their dissent on his far-left positions:

Intimidation and embarrassment seem to be SOP for Steve Hildebrand and some others in the Daschle campaign. I'll be counting the days to see how long it takes for Democrats to deliver a copy of this webpage to my employer. It's happened before. While we're at, let's see how long it takes other local media to report this effort. Or will they simply ignore it? That's exactly what they've done with every other news story that reflects poorly on Senator Daschle.

Clearly we have the Daschle campaign using intimidation to stifle those of us who want to discuss his position on the issues. The media (Argus Leader) obliges by covering the left’s character assassination against conservatives, as we are negatively labeled “anti-Daschle”.

Presenting the truth about Daschle, “as a liberal out of touch with South Dakota values and in league with outsiders”, should not be consider negative campaigning. By using innuendo, intimidation, and character assassination to stifle the voices of dissent should not only be considered negative campaigning… but also an attack on the political process that is required for freedom to flourish.

David Limbaugh’s column was so inspirational, that I could not help emailing it to the executive editor of the Argus Leader…Randell Beck. This column deserves some straight talk.
03/09/2004 Statements by Rep. Matt McCaulley on HB1191
Governor Rounds today agreed with a bi-partisan super majority of the South Dakota Legislature and moved forward landmark legislation that will protect unborn human life in South Dakota.

The Governor gave me a courtesy telephone call this morning and told me that he supports HB1191, but that he will be asking the Legislature to strengthen the legislation with style and form changes before he signs it into law. The Governor's endorsement of HB1191 is a victory for the dignity and respect of human life in South Dakota.

The changes proposed by the Governor do not affect the substance of the bill, and HB1191 will provide equal protection to unborn human life in South Dakota.

I am pleased that Governor Rounds has agreed to urge the Legislature to support his recommendation that HB1191 become law.

The basics of HB1191:

1. Finds that human life begins at fertilization.
2. Finds that the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human life.
3. Finds that pregnant woman have suffered adverse physical and mental harm as a result of abortion.
4. Prohibits abortion in almost all cases, except to save the life of the mother.
5. Makes the performance of abortions a Class 5 felony.

For the bill to become law, a majority of the South Dakota House of Representatives and the Senate will need to vote to accept the Governor's proposed changes to the bill. If either the House or the Senate fail to accept the Governor's changes, the bill would not become law.

The Legislature will meet on March 15, 2004 to consider the changes that the Governor has proposed on HB1191, in addition to other legislation that the Governor may veto. On Monday, I will be asking the House of Representatives to accept the Governor's proposed changes. Senator Schoenbeck, the prime Senate Sponsor, will also ask the Senate to accept the Governor's proposed changes.

South Dakota is often criticized for being 50th in everything. Final passage of HB1191 will make South Dakota the safest place in the country for unborn human life. In doing so, South Dakota is doing the right thing by fulfilling its duty to protect all human life.

History, text and vote record on HB1191: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/1191.htm

Monday, March 08, 2004

South Dakota NRA responds
David Conway, the Legislative Affairs representative for the South Dakota Shooting Sports Association and the NRA-ILA State Election Volunteer Coordinator, responds to Tom Daschle’s anti-gun actions of last week via a SD Shooting Sports Alert E-mail:

The 2004 Legislative Session is over. First, I must apologize for not sending
out more Alert E-mails. It was an extremely busy and unusual time at the
Capital. The SD Shooting Sports Association requested just one piece of
legislation this session, which passed with only one "no" vote. This was SCR 3, the
Senate Joint Resolution which gave Legislative Recognition to Gun Shows. To view a
copy of the completed resolution, go to our web site
(www.blackhills.com/sdssa) or cut and paste this link,
"http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/bills/SCR3enr.htm"

It is a sad situation that Senator Daschle chose to ignore the passage of
this Gun Show Resolution. After its passage, a signed copy with the SD State Seal
was sent to him. This was intended to remove any doubts in Daschle’s mind
that his constituents, speaking legislatively through their elected state
officials, indicated they want gun shows protected from the exact actions that he
displayed. His support for the Limited Liability Bill, (S. 1805), was a ruse and
an "up yours" statement from him to all firearms owners who respect the Second
Amendment. It is an election year and he went public with his hypocritical
support for S. 1805. Do not buy into his deception. When the bill was heard,
Daschle was one of the biggest anti-gun zealots. His frenzy to load down S. 1805
with multiple anti-gun "killer" amendments was unrelenting. The votes on
amendments were so close that Kerry and Edwards returned from the campaign trail to
vote at Daschle’s side. They naturally joined the Daschle determination, by
voting in favor of the amendments to extend the Clinton Gun Ban and to
legislatively shut down Gun Shows. (Remember our SCR 3 resolution?) Then came the
final insult to South Dakotans. To Daschle’s delight, the Limited Liability Bill
was so laden with anti-gun amendments, that the NRA moved to defeat it. Daschle
was one of the eight Senators who voted for this offensive bill to be passed.
It would have been a day for celebration at the Daschle camp if he could have
successfully passed all of these firearms restrictions in one sweep. Luckily,
we had the NRA and enough Senators with common sense, and/or a fear for
repercussions at the polls, that this now disastrous bill went down to defeat.
Daschle has revealed how out of touch with South Dakotans, and our values, he
really is. We hold the Second Amendment very near and dear to our hearts. It is
now time to work towards removing Senator Daschle from office and replacing him
with someone who will respect our values. He has proven repeatedly, that his
rhetorical promises to firearms owners are hollow. He has once again cuddled up
with the gun control groups, who will now do everything in their power to
assure his reelection. The outside intervention will now try to distort the
truth. Senator Daschle is venomously anti-gun. If you value your firearms and your
rights, take a stand to remove your biggest obstacle the next time you vote.
Tell those who are unaware of the facts, just what is happening to them.
Daschle is trying to land on both sides of the debate. As Senator Daschle stated, "I
think in both cases {the amendments}, it improved the bill." What do you
think?
I can’t believe my eyes
A slightly altered version of David Kranz’s column from yesterday’s Argus Leader is on page 3B of today's Mitchell Daily Republic as an AP report. How can the AP get away with putting out a biased op-ed as news? (see my previous post)

UPDATE: There is another AP version on the Aberdeen News web site.

Sunday, March 07, 2004

How about those blogs…David Kranz
In today’s Argus Leader, David Kranz mentions a blog in his column:

Even though Thune is not in the middle of TV-ad wars, there is a campaign presence, including a message on a Web site blog with a his logo and the words, "Stop Tom Daschle's obstructionism."

In another attempt by Kranz to put a negative tone on the 2004 Senate race, Kranz’s innuendo instead attempts to falsely put the blame on John Thune for the negative tone. He doesn’t even mention the blogs name. The truth can be found by going to the blogosphere. South Dakota Politics and the Daschle v. Thune blogs will inform you on what Kranz left out.

I still haven’t seen anything from Kranz on this 3/2/2004 email:
Dave,

I just confirmed with Daschle's office that he did vote for two amendments
on S. 1805. One that bans semi-automatic rifles that have been labeled assault
weapons and a second that regulates gun shows. You should cover these votes
front-page above the fold. SCR 3 regarding gun shows passed the South Dakota
Senate 33-1 and the house 64-0. SCR 3 states how important gun shows are to
South Dakota and they should not be further regulated. Daschle's votes today
to amend a pro-gun bill with two anti-gun amendments should trouble all gun
owners in South Dakota, including Tony Dean.

Steve Sibson
Mitchell

There has been much Internet coverage on this issue including blogs SDP, DVT, and this site during the past week. I thought Kranz column today should have been on the gun issue, but that would have exposed the Tom Daschle, as he votes in DC, to the readers of the Argus. Instead his column fabricates a negative tone and ignored the anti-gun votes that obstructed the passage of the gun industry immunity bill.

Also where was Tony Dean on the Tom Daschle anti-gun votes this week. I emailed him and asked why he wasn’t covering this issue. His reply:

No, I haven't. I figured you do enough in that area. For once, I agree
with you though.

With both David Kranz and Tony Dean ignoring Daschle’s anti-gun votes this week, are they plotting to treat the obvious upcoming NRA endorsement of John Thune the same as they did in 2002? Or will the threat blogs pose in exposing their folly stop them?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?